A record 512bn of work hours were lost around the world in 2023 because of the risk of heat exposure, says a new report from the Lancet Countdown on Health and Climate Change.
Agricultural workers in low-income countries were disproportionately affected, the authors say, costing countries around 8% of their GDP in 2023.
The findings are part of the ninth iteration of the annual report, which features indicators of climate change and human health, such as heat mortality, air pollution exposure and how countries are adapting.
The report highlights the many health inequalities in how energy is used around the world. According to the report, the number of deaths caused by fossil fuel-derived air pollution decreased by 7% over 2016-21 – mainly due to wealthy nations phasing out coal.
However, the vast majority of low-income countries still rely heavily on biomass and other “dirty” fuels in their homes. Dr Marina Romanello, lead author and executive director of the Lancel Countdown, added that women and children are usually in charge of sourcing and burning the fuel, making them particularly vulnerable.
The authors also call out governments and fossil fuel companies for “fuelling the fire” through continuing investment into oil and gas assets that are likely to push the world past key warming targets. The study notes that fossil fuel subsidies exceeded national health spending in 2022 for more than 20 countries around the world.
Romanello told journalists her “concern” that governments and companies “keep on promoting fossil fuel expansion, to the detriment of health and survival of people worldwide”.
Extreme heat
The impacts of extreme heat are “insidious”, Prof Ollie Jay, director of the Heat and Health Research Centre at the University of Sydney and author on the report, told a press briefing.
He explained that certain groups of people are more vulnerable to heat – including infants, the elderly, pregnant women and people with pre-existing medical conditions.
In 2023, infants and adults older than 65 faced a new record high of 14 days of heatwaves per person, the report finds. This value exceeds the previous record, set in 2022, by more than 20%.
The combination of a warming and ageing world is putting more people at risk, the report says. For example, in 2023, demographic changes alone would have driven a 65% increase in heat-related deaths among over-65s, compared to the 1990-99 average. The addition of global warming pushes this percentage up to 167% – the highest highest level recorded.
Across the whole population, the authors find that people were exposed to an average of 50 more “health-threatening heat days” in 2023 than they would have been in a world without climate change. (These are defined as days when the daily average temperature exceeds the 84.5th percentile of the 1986-2005 daily regional average.)
Beyond this global average figure, less-developed countries are much more likely to see such health-threatening days. For example, 31 such countries experienced at least 100 more days of health-threatening heat due to climate change.
The map below shows the average number of days with health-threatening temperatures attributable to climate change per year, over 2019-23, by country. Darker colours mean more health-threatening days.
Heat stress is particularly dangerous for outdoors workers, who are often directly exposed to the heat while undertaking manual labour. In 2023, around one-quarter of the world’s population worked outdoors.
The report finds that countries with the lowest human development index (HDI) – a measure of a country’s development – have the highest proportion of outdoors workers, largely due to their reliance on the agricultural sector.
The report measures the number of “potential work hours lost” due to heat exposure, by considering temperature, humidity and “typical metabolic rate of workers in specific economic sectors”.
It finds that heat exposure drove a record high of 512bn potential work hours lost in 2023 – around 1.5 times the 1990-99 average. Approximately two-thirds of this loss was in the agricultural sector, mainly in low and medium HDI countries. In total, the global potential loss of income due to extreme heat reached a record high of $835bn in 2023, the report says.
Wealthy countries were generally the least impacted by heat stress. Very high HDI countries only saw around 41 lost hours per worker due to heat, causing an economic loss of around 1% of their GDP. Meanwhile, low HDI countries lost more than 200 hours per worker, and saw almost an 8% loss in their GDP.
The graph below shows percentage GDP loss due to heat stress in low, medium, high and very high HDI countries, in agriculture (light green), construction (dark green), manufacturing (orange) and services (purple).
This year’s report also introduces a new indicator assessing how night-time heat affects sleep loss. The authors estimate that high night-time temperatures led to 5% more sleep hours lost in 2019-23 than in 1986-2005.
The authors say that air conditioning is an “effective technology for reducing heat exposure”. However, they say that it can also be an example of “maladaptation”, as it is “expensive and energy-intensive, overwhelms energy grids on hot days, and can contribute to greenhouse gas emissions”.
They note that emissions from air conditioning increased by 8% over 2016-21. However, access to the technology is not universal. In 2021, 48% of households in very high HDI countries had air conditioning compared to only 5% of those in low HDI countries.
Malnutrition and disease
The report also unpacks how climate change is exacerbating food insecurity and malnutrition.
It finds that the total proportion of global land area affected by extreme drought for at least one month per year increased from 15% in 1951-60 to 44% in 2013-24.
The authors warn that “the higher frequency of heatwave days and drought months in 2022, compared with 1981-2010, was associated with 151 million more people experiencing moderate or severe food insecurity across 124 countries”.
This year, the authors also introduced a new indicator tracking changes in rainfall events. The authors divide up the world into 80km grid squares and monitor the number of rainfall events that exceed the 99th percentile of 1961-90 rainfall.
Over the last decade, extreme rainfall events increased in more than 61% of grid squares, the report finds. The authors warn that high rainfall can drive an increase in flooding, which can lead to a range of negative health incomes including outbreaks of certain diseases.
For example, Vibrio bacteria in coastal waters can cause “severe” gastrointestinal infections and “life-threatening sepsis”. The study finds that the length of coastlines with suitable conditions for the bacteria reached a new record high of more than 88,000km in 2023 – 32% above the 1990-99 average.
In addition, the total population living within 100km of coastal waters with conditions suitable for Vibrio transmission has reached a record high of 1.42 billion.
The authors also find that the climatic conditions for mosquitoes to transmit dengue, malaria and West Nile virus have increased between 1951-60 and 2014-23 as the world has warmed.
Fossil fuels
On energy use, the study notes that, “given the high greenhouse gas and air pollution emission intensity of coal, its phase-out is crucial to protect people’s health”.
Over 2016-21, very high HDI countries have seen a reduction in the share of energy that comes from coal. (The UK became the first G7 country to phase out coal power in September 2024.)
However, the report highlights that all low HDI countries are still very dependent on coal. Over 2016-21, the share of electricity that comes from coal in low HDI countries increased from less than 1% to 10%.
According to the report, the number of deaths caused by fossil fuel-derived air pollution – specifically, tiny particulate matter known as PM2.5 – decreased by 156,000 over 2016-21 – a drop of 7%. This is mainly due to reduced pollution from coal burning in high and very high HDI countries.
Dr Marina Romanello, the lead author of the report and executive director of the Lancet Countdown, told the press briefing that this an important result as it shows the “enormous potential of coal phase-out to improve health”.
However, the report also warns that biomass burning caused 1.24 million deaths in 2021 – an increase of 135,000 from 2016 levels.
For example, the report finds that 2.3bn people still cook using biomass. In low HDI countries, around 92% of countries use solid biomass for their household energy needs. Conversely, in very high HDI countries, this number is around 10%.
Romanello explained that biomass is “very unreliable, very unstable and particularly polluting”. She added:
“When households rely on biomass, it is often women and children that are in charge of sourcing the fuel, so it also generates disproportionate impacts on these groups.”
The authors also call out fossil fuel companies for “fuelling the fire”. One of the report’s indicators assesses the compatibility of fossil fuel company strategies with the Paris Agreement. It says:
“As of March 2024, the strategies of the 114 largest oil and gas companies have put them on track to exceed their share of greenhouse gas emissions consistent with limiting global heating to 1.5C by 189% in 2040, up from the 173% excess projected in March, 2023.”
The report analyses 86 countries that are collectively responsible for 93% of global CO2 emissions. They find that, in 2022, these countries awarded a record $1.2tn in fossil fuel subsidies. This funding exceeded 10% of national health spending in 47 countries and 100% in 23 countries.
Romanello shared her “concern” with the press briefing that “governments and companies keep fuelling the fire, keep on promoting fossil fuel expansion, to the detriment of health and survival of people worldwide”.
Adaptation
Finally, the report assesses countries’ preparedness for the health impacts of climate change. This section presents a mixed picture.
The report finds that, as of February 2024, fewer than half of the most recent country climate pledges made under the Paris Agreement mentioned a “health keyword”.
However, the report also finds areas of progress. For example, at the end of 2022, only four countries had put forward health national adaptation plans (HNAPs) outlining how they will plan for and adapt to the impacts of climate change on health. Just one year later, this number had jumped up to 40 countries.
Furthermore, the authors find that scientific engagement into the links between climate change and health is increasing. The number of scientific papers investigating the link between climate change and health reached a record high in 2023, with the vast majority of papers focusing on impacts, rather than mitigation or adaptation.
The graph below shows the number of academic papers published each year over 1990-2023 on climate change and health, focused on mitigation (orange), adaptation (green) and impacts (purple).
The report finds that some countries are already implementing successful adaptation measures. For example, it explains that countries with health early warning systems saw a 73% decrease in the number of people killed per extreme weather event between 2000-09 and 2014-23. In countries without such early warning systems, the decrease was only 21%.
The authors note that “the reduction cannot be directly attributed to the implementation of health early warning systems”, but suggest that countries that implement these systems likely have higher “engagement with climate change adaptation efforts”.
The positive news in this report is “not enough to tip the balance” or to “secure a healthy future”, Romanello told the press briefing. However, she said it is “meaningful progress” which can be “built on”.
Dr Jeremy Farrar served as chief scientist of the World Health Organisation, and was previously the director of the Wellcome Trust – the main funding body behind this report. He told journalists at the press briefing that despite the “incredible evidence base” available, the health community “have been too slow to make the case that climate change is a health crisis”.
However, he praised the intersectoral collaboration between health and climate experts, and said he hopes we are “turning a corner” on making sure that climate change is seen as a “health issue”.
The post More than half a trillion hours of work lost in 2023 due to ‘heat exposure’ appeared first on Carbon Brief.
More than half a trillion hours of work lost in 2023 due to ‘heat exposure’
Solar power generation in the UK reached a new record over the summer of 2026, as temperatures across the nation soared, according to new analysis by Carbon Brief.
Collectively over June, July and August, solar farms and rooftops generated 8.8 terawatt-hours (TWh) of electricity in the UK*, as shown in the chart below.
Speaking to Carbon Brief, Chris Hewett, chief executive of trade association Solar Energy UK welcomed the new record, adding that it was driven by “clear skies and continued growth in deployment”.
This surge in generation took place amid the hottest summer on record in the UK, with five heatwaves between May and August.
Summer 2026 was the sixth sunniest on record, with more than 620 hours of sunshine, according to the Met Office. England and Wales – which experienced the most extreme heat – saw their second-sunniest summers on record.
June 2026 was the hottest June in England since records began in 1884, according to Met Office data, while Wales and the UK as a whole experienced their second-warmest June.
It was the driest July for England and Wales since records began in 1836, with some parts of London seeing no rain at all in the month, while Wisley in Surrey had no rain for 62 days.
In England, temperatures peaked at 38.1C at Kew Gardens in London on 13 August.
According to the Met Office, this summer’s record mean temperature was made 130 times more likely by climate change.
Amid these hot and sunny months, solar power generation increased 23% from the same period in 2025. This is double the level of solar generation over the summer of 2021, according to Carbon Brief analysis.
While solar panels can be affected by periods of extreme heat, the longer hours of daylight and higher levels of irradiation over the summer more than offset any efficiency losses.
June, July and August all saw solar set new monthly records for solar generation – July saw the highest solar generation in a calendar month ever, with 3.3TWh meeting 15% of overall electricity demand for the month.
As of the end of August, the total UK solar generation in 2026 stood at 17TWh – 13% higher than the same point in 2025.
The number of solar farms and rooftop installations has grown substantially in recent years, helping to boost generation. Domestic rooftop solar accounts for around 29% of total capacity.
In 2025, the UK’s solar capacity reached 21 gigawatts (GW) by the third quarter of the year, according to UK government figures. This is a jump of 3GW, or 18%, year-on-year, as Carbon Brief reported in January.
(Capacity is the maximum output possible from an electricity generation, whereas generation is what was produced over a certain time period, such as a day, month or year.)
According to the University of Sheffield, the installed solar capacity is now nearly 24GW.
This includes nearly 172,000 solar installations that have been fitted across the UK since the start of 2026, according to recent government figures. In July alone, more than 19,800 rooftop solar panels were installed – the equivalent of one installation every two minutes.
In total, nearly 1.7m households in the UK now have solar panels installed.
Over 26 heatwave days this summer – periods of at least three days when temperatures exceed the Met Office’s county-level heatwave temperature threshold – UK households with rooftop solar panels avoided an estimated £86.7m in electricity costs, according to analysis by Utility Bidder.
Talking about the surge in solar generation this summer, Hewett says:
“[It] not only kept bills down for people with solar and batteries in their homes, but helped keep overall power prices much lower than they would have been if Britain had been relying on more gas generation during the day”.
Despite the record generation, no new half-hourly solar power output record was set in the summer of 2026. This still stands at 15.2 megawatts (MW) on 23 April 2026.
* This article refers to the UK throughout, but strictly relates to the island of Great Britain, made up of England, Scotland and Wales. Northern Ireland is part of the separate, all-Ireland electricity system.
related
Factcheck: 10 flaws in the Conservative report on ‘cheap power’
Q&A: What is ‘long-duration energy storage’ – and why does the UK need it?
Q&A: What does China’s 15th ‘five-year plan’ for renewables mean for climate change?
Analysis: Wind and solar power overtake fossil fuels in Germany for first time ever
The post Analysis: UK solar power hits record high over summer 2026 appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Farmers around Europe are dealing with the aftermath of a summer of extreme heat, drought and wildfires that were exacerbated by climate change.
Human-caused climate change is increasing the severity and likelihood of many extreme weather events around the world, which is increasing volatility for food producers.
This summer resulted in, for example, shrunken potatoes in the Netherlands, reduced carrot harvests in France, dried-up rice fields in Italy and scorched olive groves in parts of the Mediterranean region.
Global food prices are currently at their highest level since early 2023 due to “heatwaves and energy price dynamics”, according to the UN Food and Agriculture Organization.
Other factors such as blocked fertiliser supplies in the Strait of Hormuz and high fuel costs have also played a role in this year’s agricultural outputs.
In the six charts below, Carbon Brief provides a snapshot of the impact this summer’s extremes are considered to have had on crop production and yields across Europe.
1. Most EU countries expect to see declines in cereal production this year
2. Most countries are recording reduced crop yields
3. Around €2bn worth of cereal losses after June heatwave
4. UK yields of wheat, barley and oats are all due to drop in 2026
5. Maize production in France is due to hit a four-decade low
1. Most EU countries expect to see declines in cereal production this year
France, in particular, will see heavy losses in the amount of cereals – such as wheat, barley and oats – it produces this year, according to European Commission data.
French cereal production is expected to drop by almost 8 megatonnes (Mt) in 2026, compared to 2025.
The chart above shows that most European countries, aside from Bulgaria, will also see production losses this year.
Germany is due to see the second-largest losses in production, dropping by almost 4Mt compared to 2025.
Prof Til Feike, a cropping systems expert at the Julius Kühn-Institut, says many areas in Germany and Austria, as with other parts of Europe, have been “hit hard by a long-lasting dry period in combination with record-high heatwaves”.
This has resulted in dry grassland for animals and lower yields of maize, which is a “key fodder crop” for livestock. He tells Carbon Brief:
“In the long run, farming must adapt better to more extreme weather conditions, not only heat and drought, but also prolonged wet periods. So, there is no one-fits-all solution for climate change adaptation.”
2. Most countries are recording reduced crop yields
Heat and a lack of water have “substantially worsened” crop expectations this summer in western and most of central Europe, according to a recent bulletin from the EU Joint Research Centre.
Yields are expected to be “significantly reduced”, with local crop failures “likely” in areas such as France, southern Germany, northern and central Italy, and Hungary, it added.
The chart below shows that yields of cereal grains – which, here, refers to the tonnes of a grain grown per hectare of land – are expected to fall in most EU countries in 2026.
Slovakia, Austria and Hungary are expected to see the largest declines in cereal yields, reducing by more than one tonne per hectare in 2026 compared to 2025.
The recent EU bulletin noted that irrigated crops performed well in Portugal this summer – the country with the largest yield increases. Other crops relying on rainfall showed growing signs of heat stress, it added.
3. Around €2bn worth of cereal losses after June heatwave
The record heatwave that hit many parts of Europe in June contributed to an estimated €2-2.3bn in cumulative grain production losses, as shown in the chart below.
The intense June heat in western Europe would have been “virtually impossible” just 50 years ago, according to a rapid climate attribution study. It was the region’s hottest June on record.
The Energy & Climate Intelligence Unit (ECIU) thinktank analysed June and July 2026 grain forecasts from Coceral, a European grain traders association.
ECIU estimated lost supply by multiplying the change in tonnes of grains between these two months by prices for harvest delivery in 28 European countries.
Major grain producers France, Germany, Hungary and Spain accounted for 86% of the lost revenue, according to the ECIU.
Extreme heat is also expected to have a wider economic impact across the continent. Analysis from Triodos Bank found that this summer’s extreme weather could reduce the EU’s gross domestic product (GDP) by around 1% this year, or around €180bn.
4. UK yields of wheat, barley and oats are all due to drop in 2026
If current trends continue, the average yields for cereals and oilseeds will result in the UK’s worst harvest since detailed records began in 1984, according to ECIU.
Barley yields could fall by 15%, oats by 14% and wheat yields by 6% year-on-year, according to 2026 harvest surveys from the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board, a non-departmental public body that provides agricultural data to the UK government.
ECIU said that, even if the situation improves, this year is still expected to be one of the five worst harvests on record. This means that four of the five worst harvests in the UK have occurred in the past decade.
Consumers will likely see higher prices and/or smaller vegetables in supermarkets as a result, Tim O’Malley, chairman of UK company Nationwide Produce, told BBC News in August.
Other crops, such as berries, have grown successfully in the extreme heat. But the Guardian noted fears this could dip later this year “as plants become exhausted from heavy cropping during the heatwave”.
5. Maize production in France is due to hit a four-decade low
France has been acutely affected by this summer’s extreme weather, with more than 7,300 excess deaths during heatwaves and a record number of weather stations recording temperatures of above 40C.
The country is the EU’s largest agricultural producer, but heat, drought and wildfires have affected many crops.
The chart below shows that maize production is set to drop by more than one-third (35%) year-on-year.
This could result in France’s lowest maize production since 1980, according to data from Agreste, the country’s agriculture ministry’s statistics service.
Due to the heat, “record-early” grape harvests have also been recorded in various parts of the nation since mid-July, reported Le Monde. In some cases, this means “smaller, less juicy grapes, which will yield less wine”, explained the newspaper.
6. Declines in EU grains since 2025
Overall in the EU, data and projections indicate declines in the output of cereal grains this year.
Cereal production is set to fall by 9% compared to 2025, according to the European Commission.
Just one year in the past decade – 2024 – recorded lower production levels.
Maize production is set to be particularly affected, with projections indicating a 13% drop, to 52Mt – the lowest level in the EU since 2007.
The post How this summer’s heat and drought impacted crops in Europe – in six charts appeared first on Carbon Brief.
How this summer’s heat and drought impacted crops in Europe – in six charts
The vast majority of Australians and all mainstream nature protection groups—including Greenpeace—agree that Australia should end native forest logging, and that governments should create vast new national parks to protect and manage some of our most magnificent remaining forests. But there is significant disagreement about how this transition should come about and now a decision is coming up before the Australian Parliament.
On 15 September the Australian Senate is due to vote on a motion about a new carbon credit method for forest protection—the “Improved Native Forest Management” (INFM) Method. Lifelong forest protection champions and people of good will and intentions find themselves on opposing sides of this debate. That’s okay–people of good faith can have legitimate differences of view, and this should be honoured in our democracy.
The NSW government has promised to create the Great Koala National Park on the Mid North Coast of the state. The government has also said that the final creation of the park is dependent on the successful registration of a carbon project under the Improved Native Forest Management (INFM) Method. The creation of the park will effectively mean an end to native forest logging in the region.
Native forest logging is not something on which Greenpeace has actively campaigned on in Australia for some decades, but we are making our position clear on this issue now, because it is a matter of significant public note that falls clearly within our environmental mission remit.
After careful consideration, Greenpeace believes this method should not be voted down by the Senate, and we call on Senators of all parties to vote against the disallowance motion.
To be abundantly clear, Greenpeace holds longstanding opposition to the carbon credit system, but in these circumstances we cannot in good conscience conflate that position with de facto opposition to the creation of massive new national parks. Although it is uncomfortable to do so, our position here is to recognise that suboptimal architecture can still be turned to good ends. We genuinely rejoice in the imminent possibility of new national parks, including the Great Koala National Park in NSW which so many community members and scientists have tenaciously argued for, over very many years, and which are so desperately needed for the forests and the wildlife which inhabits them.
In reaching our view, we also take strong notice of the opinion of the INFM among leading forest scientists, including leading forest ecologist Professor David Lindenmayer who supports the INFM as do a range of other experts. We have also taken special note of the position of the peak body for nature in New South Wales, the NSW Nature Conservation Council, and of local forest activist conservation groups, who support the INFM not being voted down in the Senate.
The politically fraught nature of forest protection
The fight to save Australia’s magnificent native forests from logging has been a decades-long battle. It has reshaped both the ecological and political landscape of the nation as vast forests have been levelled or–thankfully–sometimes saved, and political parties and leaders have risen and fallen on the back of moves to ruin or protect them.
It is no surprise then that the latest chapter in Australian forest protection has become politically fraught.
In 2024 Western Australia and Victoria officially ended native forest logging on the back of both overwhelming public pressure to do so combined with the clearly unviable financial state of the industry. This forest protection has not been bullet proof—some areas still being targeted under the guise of fire management and “salvage logging”–and other drivers of deforestation including for bauxite mining–remain a significant problem. Nonetheless, these announcements were still a very significant leap forward for forest conservation and to the credit of the advocates, communities, and scientists who fought for these outcomes–and the governments who made the decisions.
But native forests continue to fall to logging in Tasmania, New South Wales and to an extent in Queensland. So the political battle has now concentrated mostly on these states, with a renewed push by communities and environment groups to finally end native forest logging once and for all, including via the creation of large new national parks for the benefit of the whole community and for nature to flourish.
Protection with or without carbon markets?
In New South Wales, thanks to the extraordinary effort and vision of forest advocates and ecologists, proposals have been drawn up for two large national parks to protect forests currently targeted for logging and link them up with already protected areas—the Great Koala National Park in the north and the Great Southern Forest National Park in the south.
The creation of national parks requires resources. In the step up phase, the provision of public funding enables workers and communities to be supported to exit the logging industry. Significant funding is then required on a permanent basis to manage the National Parks that are created, including crucially to carefully manage fire to support forest health and regeneration, particularly as global warming continues to raise the risk of repeated catastrophic bushfires.
Along with many others, Greenpeace has a long held and strong view that nature should be protected for its own sake (rather than having to justify a monetary benefit) and that this funding should be provided by governments as a public good. Many forests and extraordinary places across Australia have been protected on this very basis for decades. Public funds for the shared good of nature protection for all Australians. Yet it is also the case that far too little public money is spent on taking care of nature.
Australians are not only justifiably proud of and love our natural heritage–our iconic wildlife and fantastic wild places–we also depend on the web of life for our own flourishing. And yet significantly less than 1% of all public money in Australia is spent on taking care of nature across our magnificent continent. It is inadequate to do what is needed in the face of the extinction crisis and the severe climate damage caused by global warming.
So, it is on the question of sources of revenue where fierce disagreement has emerged amongst forest champions. As noted above, the position taken by the New South Wales Government is that the creation of the Great Koala National Park hinges on raising the necessary funds by selling carbon credits to companies as an offset to the greenhouse gas emissions they are producing (recognising the value of carbon stored in forests). For this reason, whether the Great Southern National Park proposal progresses or not is also likely to depend on the ability to create carbon credits from it.
Some advocates are understandably steadfastly opposed and outraged that the creation of a National Park would rely on carbon credits to be established, while others see this a reluctantly pragmatic yet effective pathway to a rapid end to native forest logging, not just in New South Wales but also in Tasmania and elsewhere. People of good will can disagree–and on this, they do.
We also recognise that it is a difficult debate to have in the public realm–because those not across the debates over policy and principle will be fairly inclined to bewilderment that anyone who cares about nature could possibly oppose the creation of new national parks on what might seem like quite arcane grounds.
Australia’s troubled and troubling carbon market
Like forest protection, curbing Australia’s climate pollution has been another politically vexed problem for decades. Climate policies have come and gone, taking political leaders with them.
In 2011 the Carbon Farming Initiative was established by the Gillard Labor government and supported by the Greens (then led by Bob Brown and Christine Milne). This set up a system whereby farmers and Indigenous communities could generate carbon credits to better manage forests (including with better fire management) to receive funding from the Federal Government or corporations as a means of storing or reducing carbon emissions on the land, while also (ostensibly) protecting nature and creating regional jobs.
This scheme then morphed into the Abbott Coalition government’s Emissions Reduction Fund and Safeguard Mechanism in 2014. This policy was cynical in nature, designed to do virtually nothing given Tony Abbott’s aggressive rejection of the need for greenhouse gas emission reduction, essentially expanding a voluntary market where carbon polluters could buy carbon credits to offset their emissions. There was very little obligation for polluters to actually reduce emissions at site or be forced to buy carbon credits at all.
Then, in 2023 the Albanese government reformed the Safeguard Mechanism, setting stricter emission baselines for polluters and forcing many to buy carbon credits to offset their emissions.
The problem is this latest reform of the Safeguard Mechanism has not worked. This is partly due to the emission baselines being set too low but also because many polluters have simply been buying up carbon credits rather than attempting to actually reduce their emissions.
Furthermore, the very concept of carbon credits is highly problematic. Unlike fossil fuels found in their natural state, carbon and greenhouse gases stored in forests and the land are more volatile and exposed to rapidly being released to the atmosphere from fires, disease, floods and other natural or global heating-driven events. Greenpeace holds a longstanding position of deep scepticism about the efficacy of carbon credits. That has not changed.
In practice most of the existing carbon credit methods have been under sustained criticism from experts and scientists with deep knowledge of the system, arguing that currently, most projects are receiving credits for little or no actual storing of carbon in the land.
So when advocates for forest protection and climate action raise concerns about protecting forests via carbon credits, it’s clear why.
The INFM method
Chief public critic and whistleblower of the historic carbon credit system in Australia, Professor Andrew Macintosh, has been the lead architect behind the creation of the Improved Native Forest Management (INFM) which has been developed in partnership with the New South Wales Government. This is because despite having been a critic of the carbon credit system as it was operating, Professor Macintosh is not against carbon credits per se, but rather a poorly designed and executed system.
Regardless of what one thinks of the morality or efficacy of the method; the fiscal truth is that the INFM would create a new means for state governments to generate significant revenue by ending native forest logging in key areas and protecting and managing the forests.
Professor Macintosh and other supporters of the method argue that unlike other carbon credit methods, the INFM is of the highest integrity possible. That’s because the carbon that is credited is conservative, accounting for approximately 1/10th of potential carbon stored, a regional cap prevents logging simply commencing elsewhere, and significant financial penalties apply for non delivery of credits. If all the forests threatened by logging were protected by this method that would represent about 5% of carbon credits in the system. Significantly, the New South Wales Government has also pledged that no carbon credits from the Great Koala National Park would be sold to fossil fuel companies.
Leading ecologist and staunch forest advocate Professor David Lindenmayer also supports the method. Other prominent ecologists Professor Brendan Mackey, Dr Don Butler and Dr Heather Keith also provided input into the method.
Key environmental groups in New South Wales such as the North East Forest Alliance and South East Forest Alliance as well as the Nature Conservation Council of NSW (which is the peak body for nature in NSW) strongly support the INFM and see it as key to creating large forest National Parks in the state and effectively ending native forest logging.
The logging industry is vehemently opposed to the method because they are rightly worried it will shut down what remains of this industry. They are supported by One Nation and the Nationals, both of which have pledged to vote against the method down when it comes to a vote in the Senate on September 15th.
The opponents to forest protection are also joined in the against camp by some climate and forest advocates, including the Australia Institute and Wilderness Australia, who are strongly against carbon credits overall, in particular relying on them to protect forests and are concerned at the potential for perverse outcomes in the context of the broader need to reduce Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions.
The Greenpeace Position
Greenpeace opposes carbon credits and accepts the analysis that the Safeguard Mechanism is failing. The creation of new forest National Parks should not be contingent on the commodification of nature and the sale of carbon credits. Nature should be protected for nature’s sake. Much more public funding should be available for the protection of nature. Our position will not change on the intrinsic value of ecology. Our mission is to secure an earth capable of nurturing life in all of its magnificent diversity.
However, we cannot in good conscience de facto oppose the creation of a massive new national park in these circumstances—especially when Australia’s leading forest ecologists, the foremost critic of carbon credits, and the grassroots forests activists from the jurisdiction in question support the outcome of moving ahead with the INFM to secure massive new national parks.
For that reason, in our view is that in these circumstances the Senate should not vote down the INFM method.
Further, fossil fuel companies should not have access to the INFM credits. The existing sham carbon credit methods should be urgently taken out of the system. The fight for more public funding for the protection of nature must go on until common sense prevails. And the Safeguard Mechanism should be substantially overhauled to significantly constrain the use of carbon credits more broadly and force polluters to rapidly reduce emissions on site. We believe that this is the fight which forest and climate advocates should be focussed on, together.
-
Climate Change1 year ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Climate Change2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Renewable Energy11 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
嘉宾来稿：探究火山喷发如何影响气候预测
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits